“A Question of Priorities": House Rejects Move to Cut NSF, NASA Budgets

There are few occasions when Members of Congress publicly must make a clear choice between funding for basic science and technology and other domestic programs. Such an opportunity arose during House action on H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 1996 (see FYI #113.)

During consideration of this legislation on July 31, Rep. John Ensign, a Republican freshman representing Nevada’s 1st District (Las Vegas), offered an amendment to increase the VA medical care appropriation by reducing the NSF and NASA appropriations. After fifteen minutes of debate the House rejected this amendment by more than a two-to-one margin, voting 121-296 against it. This bill is now pending before the Senate VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee chaired by Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO).

Under this amendment, the FY 1996 Veterans Health Administration appropriation would have increased by $267 million over that amount provided in H.R. 2099. This increase would have been offset by a $235 million decrease in the National Science Foundation’s Research and Related Activities appropriation and an $89.5 million reduction in NASA’s Human Space Flight program.

Of the 417 Members voting, 29% voted in favor of the Ensign amendment. Among Republicans, 20% voted yes; 40% of Democrats supported this amendment.

Ensign opened the debate stating, “I offer my amendment to ensure that we keep the promises made to our veterans.” He described a $184 million gap between the recommended VA health care appropriation and the administration’s request, which would be closed by his amendment. Ensign continued, “Surely, when veterans are facing the prospect of losing access to health care, the NSF can take a 10-percent cut.” Regarding NASA, he stated, “we are talking about a very small reduction in NASA’s $13.67 billion allotment,” calling it “reasonable middle ground.”

Five Members spoke in opposition to the Ensign amendment. VA, HUD appropriations subcommittee chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) said the amendment would umbalance the bill, and predicted the proposed NSF cut would have “a dramatic and negative impact.” House Science Committee Chairman Bob Walker (R-PA) was stronger in his criticism of the NSF reduction, stating: “we have commitments that are very, very important in science. There are many of these science researchers that over the years also feel that they have a commitment to making certain that we keep this Nation economically strong by having a good basic science base. This particular amendment will cut into that basic science base; this is one of the worst places that we can possibly find to cut programs in the entire VA-HUD budget.”

Rep. George Brown (D-CA) joined in criticizing the amendment, calling it “ill-advised.” He added, “I cannot stress too strongly how important it is not to impose additional budgetary stress on the space shuttle program at a time when the shuttle program is trying to adjust to the cuts already imposed on it.” Also opposing the amendment was House Appropriations Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA), who stated, “There are conflicting interests, all of which are necessary and vital. We pit NASA against housing; housing against veterans’ benefits. There is no one in this Chamber that wants to cut any of these things unless it is absolutely necessary. And it is absolutely necessary to cut these to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002.”

In wrapping up discussion on his amendment, Ensign said, "...this is a difficult decision to make, and I appreciate what the subcommittee chairman [Lewis] and all the members of the [appropriations] committee have gone through in crafting this bill. To me, though, this happens to be a question of priorities.”

FYI #120 provides the roll call vote on the Ensign amendment.